Skip to main content

tv   Anderson Cooper 360  CNN  December 6, 2012 1:00am-2:00am PST

1:00 am
tomorrow night, it's the return of my all-time favorite guests, the outspoken and entertaining alec baldwin, talking from everything on politics to married life, to the fate of his "30 rock" character. alec baldwin live tomorrow night. that's all for us tonight. "ac 360" starts now. good evening. it's 10:00 on the east coast and we begin with brooking news on the looming fiscal cliff. and signs of a potential fall. for the past few nights we've been telling you about the frustrating lack of progress to avert a deal on automatic tax hikes and spending cuts that kick in less than four weeks from now. poll after poll shows the american people want compromise. but there weren't many signs that was going to happen, nothing was getting done.
1:01 am
in a cnn/orc poll taken a few weeks ago, 67% said washington officials would behave like spoiled children in the fiscal cliff discussions. only 28% said they would behave like responsible adults. tonight, signs that maybe some adult behavior might be prevail. and a compromise might be reached. joining me now live is senior white house correspondent dana bash, jessica yellin and david gergen. what's the latest? what are you hearing? >> reporter: they are a long way from a deal. but late today speaker boehner and president obama did speak to one another on the phone. now, this is an important development because it's the first time they've talked in a week about the fiscal cliff. i am told, though, that there was no real progress in negotiations. in this sense there was no breakthrough on that central point of tax rates. as you know, president obama insists there is no deal unless the gop agrees to raise rates on the top 2% of earners. the gop says that's a nonstarter. and the two men have not moved from that basic position.
1:02 am
now, all of this comes at the same time treasury secretary geithner also said for the first time the administration would be willing to go over the fiscal cliff if the gop does not agree to raise those rates. this was treasury secretary geithner earlier today on cnbc. >> is the administration prepared to go over the fiscal cliff? >> oh, absolutely. there's no prospect to an agreement that doesn't involve those rates going up on the top 2% of the wealthiest. remember, it's only 2%. all those americans, too, get a tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income. so, in some sense it's a tax cut for all americans. >> reporter: bottom line, anderson, we're talking today but we're still at stalemate. >> yeah, i mean, it's a sign, jessica and dana, of just how lack -- how little progress there's been that a phone call is big news between these two. dana, we're also hearing hints of some move between republicans, coburn, olympia
1:03 am
snowe, susan collins. what are you hearing? how significant is it? >> reporter: it's significant for a couple reasons. one is, you're right. three republicans in different ways suggested they would be okay with what most republicans are saying, that they're not okay with, which is raising tax rates for the wealthiest. tom coburn is the most significant because he's the most conservative in general, not just fiscally, the fact he broke with his party. the others have sort of gone along with this in some way, shape or form in the past. it's significant because the way these things kind of tend to go is that there is a little bit of a crack. and then that tends to send other cracks into the -- what is now a solid opposition of republicans to raising rates on the wealthy. so, we'll see how that goes. however, i think it's important to underscore we're talking about senate republicans. and the key thing we have to watch is house republicans because if something can't get through the house, which still has a big majority of
1:04 am
republicans, then it can't get through congress. those are the republicans we need to watch. >> david gergen, what do you make of this situation? do you think we're any closer to a deal? >> i think we might be, anderson. listen, the political theater of all of this certainly suggests we're a long, long way from there. when erskine bowles says there's a one in three chance we'll be successful in avoiding the fiscal cliff, you have to pay attention. when geithner and other democrats are saying, we're willing to go over the cliff and that's a growing sentiment within the party, you have to think, wow, this is really going to happen. but if you look at the underlying conversation between them on the substance of it, here we have a republican party that for 22 years has uniformly opposed tax increases. now, john boehner has said not only we're putting $800 billion on the table but we're going to aim it at the rich. the rich are the ones that will pay. that's what he said today. yesterday, president obama said something that was very, very important. he offered the outlines of a deal that might work with republicans. that's something we talked about
1:05 am
on your show a couple nights ago, anderson. that is, raise the rates now and then engage in conversations next year on tax deductions and loopho loopholes. and that's called base broadening. base broadening in the past has been attached to lowering the rates. lowering the rates. that's what happened in 1986 with tax reform. so, what the president is saying, there is a way to raise rates temporarily. but through further reform you say you're interested in, we could lower them back down next year. >> david, you've been critical of the president and democrats. do you still think they're overplaying their hand here? >> i think there are people around the president who are more interested or at least have a strong interest in using this as a way to humiliate republicans as a way to push them to the brink, as opposed to negotiating. we'll have to wait to see how it plays out. i think what we've seen with second-term presidents in the
1:06 am
past, and the great scholar richard newstat wrote about this a long time ago. there's a danger in second terms of hubris, of excessive pride, in the white house. i think we're seeing hints of that but i think it's unfair to totally label it like this. let's see this play out a little more. i think they have enough to go into private negotiations right now. if both sides continue to refuse, i do think it is the president's responsibility. he is the leader of all the people. i think the country is getting tired of watching two sides going, you go first, you go first, no, no, you go first. it's alfonz and gaston. they need to get off that, sit down and get something worked out. >> jessica, from the white house's perspective, though, they feel they were burned before and they're trying a different strategy, is that true? >> reporter: true. you remember last summer during the debt talks the president was accused of negotiating, putting his compromised position on the table first, of selling out democrats, of negotiating against himself. so, he's doing the opposite this time, doing exactly what he was
1:07 am
criticized for not doing last time. and he's being slammed for it, as well. white house officials shrug their shoulders every time we go to them asking if they're engaging in overreach. one of the reasons, anderson, they say they're not negotiating with the republicans on the rest of the issue, why don't they put the issue of tax rates aside and discuss everything else and come back to tax rates? they say it's because everything else is easy. they've gone through all of this during the debt talk discussions. and they know how this will get done. it can get done very quickly. the one issue for them is tax rates. they say, if the republicans break on that, when they break on it, they believe they will, everything else gets done very quickly. of course, the republicans see it differently. just adding quickly on that point david gergen made. the white house explicitly came out today saying, point-blank, they do want a two-step process for tax reform, raise the rates on the top 2% to clinton levels now and let next year be a time for negotiating rates for the
1:08 am
future and maybe everybody could lower the rates for everyone during that time. >> dana, how much of this do you think is just public posturing and kind of bloviating on partisan cable channels? it does seem like there's a lot of that going on. >> reporter: so much of that is public posturing and bloviating. but i think the difference between now and what we've seen in past high-stakes negotiations like this, you have the public posturing, the bloviating and the, okay, guys, let's roll up our sleeves and talk about what's really going on. by all accounts, that's not happening right now. just like you said, the fact you said it's news the president and speaker had their first phone conversation which got nowhere in a week is really amazing. and it speaks to the lack of the real conversations going on behind the scenes. i will say that, you know, back to what david and jessica were saying, david particularly, about the fact that -- the question about whether the white house and democrats in general are overreaching, look, when timothy geithner says today he's willing to go over the cliff, he's saying it because, yes,
1:09 am
it's posturing. he's also saying it because he means it. democrats have been telling us this for a long time, for months and months and months before this was even close to the front burner, this issue. they say they realize they have the leverage because at the end of the day, if republicans don't agree to anything, all tax rates will go up and they firmly believe republicans will get blamed. it was very obvious listening to the speaker today. i was at that press conference talking to him, that they understand they're losing the message war on this. that's why he made a point to say, it's not that we're not for raising taxes on wealthy. it's just a difference over rates. >> david, it's so interesting how things have changed. i spoke with george mitchell last night on the program. about to speak with senator trent lott. bought have written op-eds. in talking to them it's like talking to adults because they're talking about, you know, the way it was even five or six years ago where people actually had meetings with each other on opposite sides, and you know, knew each other and didn't just kind of disappear to their opposite corners and fly away to
1:10 am
their home districts. they actually compromised. it's amazing to me how much things have changed just in the last couple of years. >> it's true, anderson. it's dramatic. and i think there's a lot of blame to go around here. i don't want to try to push it one way or the other. but seeing bob dole on the floor yesterday of the congress, on the disability question and remembering how bob dole and george mitchell, how much they respected each other, how much they worked together, how much they both wanted to negotiate. there was a sense in the senate especially, but even in the house some years ago, that the purpose of being there was to make progress for the country. yes, you made your arguments loud and clear. at the end of the day you sat down and negotiated it out because that's what the country needed. now, there's this -- there's this willingness to keep trying to pin the political blame on the other side, keep trying to push the other side, making sure they get the blame if this thing goes down rather than sort of saying, how do we make sure we
1:11 am
don't go down? >> we'll leave it there. dana bash, jessica yellen, appreciate your reporting. signs there could be progress, far from a done deal. as we mentioned treasury secretary said today, the obama administration is willing to go over the fiscal cliff if republicans don't agree to raising taxes on the rich. all this week, we've been focusing on what it is about this congress and this administration that makes it seem like compromise is a dirty word. certainly the extremes in the party seem to view it that way. we've been talking with past congressional leaders who have sat down at the negotiating table, facing sharp differences with the other political party in the past and still managing to come out with a deal. today, i spoke a short while ago with former senate majority leader trent lott, author of "herding cats: a life in politics." senator lott, you and senator mitchell wrote op-eds. diagnosing the dysfunction in washington and offering some solutions.
1:12 am
you said one solution is to hold congress at hearings, marking up bills going on legislation. most americans would agree with that but be surprised to hear, i mean, that's their job. i think most of us, you know, would assume, isn't that their job description? >> well, they've slowly slipped away from that over the last four years, i guess, particularly the last two years. the senate hasn't passed a budget resolution for several years now. they don't do appropriations bills before the end of the fiscal year, not even before the end of the calendar year. they haven't had a traditional conference between the house and senate in at least a year. >> i mean, i don't want to sound hysterical but that sounds crazy to me. >> it does to me, too. frankly, it's one of the simple things they could do that would be a solution to the gridlock and the partisanship we have now. i think if they would go back to the old way of getting things done, carefully, systematically, it would really help them. >> here we are, to your point, the edge of a fiscal cliff, and congress is still taking three-day weekends and planning on a holiday break. >> you know, i did an interview
1:13 am
last night. the moderator of a panel i was on was mark shields. he asked me, if you could just recommend one thing other than going back to what we call regular order, what would it be? my recommendation to the congress and the president would be, quit campaigning, quit having press conferences. sit down at a round table and negotiate a deal. there's a little bit of a revisionist history where we talk about how it was so good in the old days. it was tough then, too. but we got it done. one of the ways we did it, we quit running around talking at each other and talked with each other. >> your op-ed, the headline was washington lost the love of the deal. and it seems like that. that dealmaking, that compromise, even just talking to each other like civilized human beings doesn't seem like that's happening at all. >> it's not happening. and you know, anderson, i was always a conservative republican. and i had very strong beliefs about certain things we should or should not do. but also thought that i was sent to washington by the people of
1:14 am
my state, not to make a statement, but to make a difference and try to get a result. when you're dealing with 100 united states senators, let alone 435 house members, you're not going to get it all the way you want it. the president's going to have to give some. the president has to show leadership. the leaders in the congress have to step up. it's kind of dangerous because, you know, the extremes of both parties, they're not looking for compromise. they're looking for a win on their point of view. but you have to be prepared to give some. you have to be prepared to push to get something done. and if you do that, if you make up your mind, i'm going to get this done, you will. >> and when you were leading the senate, you spoke to senator daschle all the time. >> i had a red phone on my desk. sometimes the problems in washington or in the congress and administration, their staff people. so, i had a red phone where when i picked up that phone, it rang one place, tom daschle's desk. when he picked it up, i knew i was talking to tom daschle. not his staff or my staff. sometimes he and i would leave
1:15 am
when our conferences were not ready to move. i remember one time i called him, stepped out from a conference meeting and said, tom, you know we need to do this. i'm having problems. he said, i am, too. i said, let's do it. he said, let's go. i'll see you on the floor. we went up on the floor of the senate, we called the bill up, we passed it by sundown. you got to do that every now and then. even though you might catch a little flack from some of the people within your conference. it's called leadership, anderson. >> so, what for you do you think was the moment that this changed, that compromise became a dirty word? democrats point to the tea party and say on the right, that's it. republicans will say on the left there's extremes, as well. >> yeah, yeah, there are extremes on both sides. i used to get hammered for being -- i was accused of being a compromiser or a dealmaker. i didn't know those were dirty words. it didn't just happen overnight. it wasn't an event. it's been an evolutionary thing. a lot of things contributed to it. tom daschle, my good friend, was democratic leader when i was majority leader for republicans, said the biggest problem is the airplane.
1:16 am
because members, they don't bring their families up here anymore. they come in on monday or tuesday morning and all they want to know is when can i leave thursday? you can't legislate in 48 hours a week. you can't legislate if you're on two weeks, off a week, schedules don't match. number one, it's part of the times we're in. when we came up here, we didn't have cell phones, fax machines, computers. so, we spent time together. we knew each other, we liked each other, across party lines. that doesn't happen now. members run away now. part of it is, frankly, anderson, 24/7 news, you make a mistake in this city now and you're toast for days. >> right. >> and so it's all of the above. but it can change, anderson, once people make up their mind, look, we are going to start doing things a little differently. we're going to go back and do some of the things that worked. part of it is generational, perhaps. and maybe with the next generation it will be different. >> i would say on a personal note, i wouldn't sell yourself short.
1:17 am
it's good to have people there who know how to compromise, who know how to get things done and who have experience there. so, it's good to talk to you. >> thanks a lot, anderson. >> good to talk to you, senator. >> appreciate it. >> follow us @andersoncooper. i'm tweeting about this. we also have more breaking news ahead. a startling report from nbc. syrian military loading chemical weapons into bombs and awaiting orders from president assad to use them. that's the concern of u.s. officials, the belief that's happened. we'll talk it over next. w?
1:18 am
1:19 am
1:20 am
welcome back. we have important breaking news to tell you about right now. nbc news is reporting u.s. officials say their worst fears have been confirmed that the syrian military has loaded chemical weapons inside bombs. nbc says those same officials
1:21 am
say bashar al assad's forces are awaiting final order to use those loaded missiles against syria's own people. this video posted online, which we can't independently verify, purports to show syrian missiles that have been modified to carry chemical and biological weapons. obviously, this is a sobering development in a situation that seems to be getting worse by the day. pentagon correspondent barbara starr joins me now, along with cnn contributor and former cia officer bob baer and on the phone, cnn international contributor, fran townsend. barbara, i know you're working to confirm this nbc report. how much would this change the situation? if u.s. military is going to act to prevent assad from gassing his own people, it would seem, if they loaded this stuff into weapons, the time to do it would be at hand. >> well, right now i can tell you, anderson, if this turns out to be true, even if not, the u.s. military, the cia in a full-blown effort to collect every piece of intelligence they can about what is going on with the chemical weapons and develop
1:22 am
a targeting strategy if it were to come to that. so, what are we talking about here, anderson? they have to put together targeting options for the president. that involves the latest intelligence. where are the chemical weapons in syria? what would you do to attack them? what kind of u.s. bomber aircraft would you use? do you know precisely where they are? how will you get that bomber aircraft past syrian air defenses? and i think it's safe to assume the neighboring countries, israel, turkey, jordan, their intelligence services also working this problem around the clock. there is a lot we know. there is growing concern by the hour, in the region, because if the syrians use these kind of weapons against their own people, catastrophic. but if they also use them, these weapons, the plume clouds, if you will, can cross borders, terrorists could get ahold of this kind of material if it's now out of secure locations and
1:23 am
take it across borders into israel, jordan or turkey. it just doesn't get more serious than this. >> bob, you've been looking into how catastrophic these weapons could be. >> anderson, look at it this way, 122-millimeter artillery round with mixed sarin landing in the middle of a city will immediately kill 18,000 to 20,000 people. and that's in the first seconds. >> one round? >> one round. and the dispersion on that could be -- depends on the wind. but you could take out a city like homs. you could take out a third of the city in the first couple hours. anderson, this is a highly toxic liquid. it's a persistent agent. it's absolutely completely deadly. keep in mind that if, in fact, they mix the cerron -- it's a
1:24 am
binary agent, it doesn't do you any good to bomb these sites because it will just disperse the chemicals all around. if they're sitting in cities or near cities, it will have the same amount of damage. so, we are faced with a terrible dilemma. of course, if you take one of these rounds and put it on artillery, you could fire it into anywhere you want. into israel, for instance. and considering that al qaeda is on the ground in syria, there's all sorts of disaster scenarios. they're remote but still a possibility. >> we don't want to speculate too much. this is an nbc report they have been loaded into bombs. we haven't been able to independently confirm it at this point. fran, from your experience in the white house, what kind of planning goes on at a point like this? are the president's military advisers presenting him with options? and to bob's point, if you strike these targets from the air, it doesn't help. it can disperse something like sarin. >> that's right, anderson. senior military officers have
1:25 am
confirmed to me, what they told us months ago, which is this sort of contingency planning, the planning for how do you secure what may be as many as four dozen chemical weapon sites in syria? what does that take? what sort of coordination with our military allies? what about the neighbors and what will they contribute? there's been a good deal of military planning, training and coordination that's gone on over the last 6 to 12 months for this. now, that's all in preparation for exactly what barbara and bob are telling us now. that is, now you have to understand given the current intelligence, and there is a real priority on collecting current real-time intelligence to understand, now how do you take those plans? you've been working and address the immediate threat. that's the challenge. you bet the president's military advisers, along with his national security staff, are working to present him options. >> bob, i think back to
1:26 am
entry-level political science classes in college. you talk about the rationale act or model. assuming al assad is a rational actor, even if he thinks he may lose and need a place to go some day like russia or be able to live in exile somewhere, just rationally speaking, it would not make sense for him to use these weapons, would it? >> well, we have to look at the generals around him. he's not alone in this. he's not a single man making these decisions. there are a group of generals from his own promotion which are controlling this war. they are not being offered a way out. you know, and the way they look at it, i've spent a lot of time with these people. they're virtually a cult. they think their survival's at stake. even if the united states were to enter in any sort of -- you know, to go in and get the weapons, that would be a better
1:27 am
option for them than to losing to the rebels who they consider terrorists, fundamentalists, whatever you want. and their chances are dimming by the day. and they're very desperate and they are this closed-in mentality. it's unpredictable exactly what they're going to do right now. >> barbara, i guess to bob's earlier point, even if the weapons aren't used, if the chemicals are mixed and loaded into delivery devices, that's a concern because, as bob said, there's al qaeda groups on the ground, jihadist groups on the ground. and if the control over these weapons then is lost, who knows where they could end up? what's the u.s. military posture in the region in terms of aircraft carrier, fighter jets, the ability for the u.s. to actually project power into this? >> the u.s. does have an aircraft carrier last time we checked nearby in the red sea -- pardon me, abamphibious warships, with marines onboard in the red sea. they could move north.
1:28 am
there are aircraft throughout the persian gulf region, fighters and bombers. aircraft carriers in the north arabian sea on station for missions over afghanistan. all of these things could be brought to bear. i think what the u.s. is hoping at this point is that very rapidly somehow they can mobilize support amongst the neighboring countries to get assad to back away from this. bob's point is absolutely key. assad could go into asylum tomorrow. the crisis would not end. if you do not have an orderly transition of power, if you have no assurance on who's in charge in syria the day after assad leaves, this problem of securing the chemical weapons becomes perhaps even more dire. >> it's sobering stuff. and bob's assessment of the power of just one shell in a city like homs. bob, i appreciate you being on. barbara starr as well. we'll continue to follow it, as
1:29 am
well. up next, while lawmakers have been battling over the fiscal cliff crisis, they managed to find time to vote on a treaty that would have protected disabled around the world. it's modeled on the americans with disabilities act. 38 republican senators blocked it with their votes. you might ask, why would they do that? we'll tell you, ahead.
1:30 am
1:31 am
an arrest of a death of a new york man pushed on the tracks and killed by a subway, tonight on "360" i'll talk to another man who jumped on the tracks once and saved a man's life three years ago. he says all the criticism for those who didn't help this time is misguided. you're going to hear why, coming up. get married, have a couple of kids,
1:32 am
[ children laughing ] move to the country, and live a long, happy life together where they almost never fight about money. [ dog barks ] because right after they get married, they'll find some retirement people who are paid on salary, not commission. they'll get straightforward guidance and be able to focus on other things, like each other, which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade.
1:33 am
back to capitol hill. this time, keeping them honest. not trying to take sides, pulling for republicans or democrats. there are other cable channels for that. but tonight we're reporting, exposing facts and exposing hypocrisy where we see it.
1:34 am
models on american with disabilities act which the u.s. passed 22 years ago. but 38 u.s. republican senators voted against the u.n. treaty leaving it 5 votes short of ratification. not even a rare visit by former republican senator bob dole who just before the vote made a difference. he's 89, appeared frail in his wheelchair. and dole, disabled from war injuries, came to the chamber to show support for this treaty. rick santorum led the charge against the treaty. he and some other republicans warned it would jeopardize u.s. sovereignty and personal freedoms. listen. >> the problem is, there's a provision in this international law which we would be adopting if the senate ratifies this that puts the state, the state in the position of determining what is in the best interest of a disabled child. >> i simply cannot support a treaty that threatens the right of parents to raise their children with the constant looming threat of state
1:35 am
interference. >> the treaty could be used to interfere with the ability of parents with disabled children to decide what action is in the best interest of their children. >> that all sounds very alarming. keeping them honest, it's just not true. the treaty does create a committee that can issue nonbinding recommendations on how nations can do better on disability rights. but it doesn't, i repeat, does not require any changes to existing state or federal laws. in july former republican attorney general dick thornburgh testified before the senate foreign relations committee saying, quote, protect u.s. sovereignty and recognize the convention as a nondiscrimination instrument similar to our own americans with disabilities act. in other words, the u.n. treaty can't force the u.s. to do anything. nothing at all. but that fact didn't stop rick santorum, whose 4-year-old daughter is disabled, from pushing his own storyline and, frankly, twisting the facts along the way. listen. >> this is a direct assault on
1:36 am
us and our family, to hand over to the state the ability to make medical determinations and see what is in the best interest of the child and not look at the wonderful gift that every child is. >> after the treaty was voted down, john kerry said, i quote, this is one of the saddest days i've seen in almost 28 years in the senate. it needs to be a wake-up call about a broken institution that's letting down the american people. we need to fix this place. today he addressed mr. santorum's claims. >> i have great respect for both rick and his wife, karen, their daughter and their family. he's a strong family man. but he either simply hasn't read the treaty or doesn't understand it. or he was just not factual in what he said, because the united nations has absolutely zero, zero, i mean zero ability, to
1:37 am
order or to tell or to -- i mean, they can suggest. but they have no legal capacity to tell the united states to do anything under this treaty. nothing. >> tonight, many disability rights advocates are saying politics trump the welfare of the disabled everywhere. seven-term democratic congressman of rhode island is among the many supporters of the u.n. treaty, the first quadriplegic person to serve in the u.s. house. before yesterday's vote he talked with former senator bob dole in the senate chamber. the congressman joins me now. you voted for this treaty. you joined senator mccain and kerry earlier this week calling for its ratification. why do you think it's so important? >> first, anderson, thank you for having me on the program. thank you for paying attention to this very important issue. this issue is important, not just for people here in the united states, but most especially for people around the world who don't yet enjoy the same protections that people -- disabled people like myself enjoy here in the united states because of the passage with the
1:38 am
americans with disabilities act. that law has really transformed the lives of people with disabilities. and i can speak to that firsthand. i was injured in 1980, i became paralyzed after a gun accident and i know what the law was like or what the world was like, but before and after the ada. i can tell you, it's remarkably different. it's just a shame the senate couldn't pass that measure yesterday. but i do want to thank senator kerry and senator mccain, senator harken for their extraordinary leadership and everything they did to get it to this point. the bipartisan support, the 61 senators, who did vote in favor of it. >> look, some people look at the ada, americans with disabilities act, and say if the u.s. has what is considered to be the gold standard of legislation in this area, why do we need a treaty from the u.n.? >> because we're in many ways endorsing the work of the u.n. in trying to spread that message of equality and protection of
1:39 am
the rights of people with disabilities around the world. and how can we in a sense show leadership in this area if we're not able to and willing to join with the other nations around the world who have supported this treaty? >> so, for those who say -- for those who say this violates u.s. sovereignty because they argue it could somehow force changes in u.s. law, is that even possible? because i don't see how that's possible? >> not even possible. not even possible. in fact, the senate wording made it very clear that it does not trump u.s. law. in fact, there's a u.s. supreme court decision, i believe it was in 2004, that said such statements by the senate are dispositive. so, it would give no standing to anyone in u.s. courts to sue a state, or federal courts, and absolutely does not trump the
1:40 am
constitution or any u.s. law. in many ways, it is a standard that we want other nations to aspire to, if you will. we are setting the standard with the passage of american with disabilities act. but it's even -- it makes the more -- the treaty have -- making the rights of people with disabilities even more relevant and more clear by endorsing a treaty to give the same protections around the world we enjoy here in the united states. >> i appreciate your time. we're not reporting on this based on politics, just looking at facts and the facts used against this were incorrectly used. they just weren't true. congressman, appreciate your time tonight. no end to the violent protests in egypt tonight. we're learning mohamed morsi is preparing to address his country. the latest on that coming right up.
1:41 am
1:42 am
1:43 am
police announced an arrest in the deadly subway altercation in new york city. up next, you'll hear from a man who risked his own life to save a man who fell on to the subway tracks a few years ago. question is, would you be able to do the same thing? we'll be right back.
1:44 am
1:45 am
police in new york announcing an arrest in a crime that's shocked this city and most of the country. 30-year-old naeem davis is facing murder charges for shoving another man in front of an oncoming train. the arrest is doing little to quiet questions about why those in the station didn't try to do more or do anything to help lift him off the tracks. a freelance photographer on the scene shot this photo for "the new york post." that's the cover. showed the victim after it was too late to get out of the train's way. the photographer says he was trying to use the flash to alert the train's drivers while others ran for station workers. another photo from "the new york
1:46 am
post" shows the man on tracks without the subway in sight perhaps giving bystanders a chance to help. our next guest says he understands what was going through a lot of people's minds at a moment like that. in 2009 chad lindsey jumped onto the new york city subway tracks and rescued a man who passed out and fell onto the platform. he joins me now. thank you for being here. what you did was amazing. there's been a lot of criticism of the photographer and other people on the platform. you say that's misguided. why? >> well, because they weren't there. i think we do a lot of quarterbacking from the couch. i mean, you know, we don't know what happened. that's a still shot. you know, how do you know how far away he was? and also people have different reflexes. you don't know what they are until they're tested. >> i found that in war zones. you don't know how people will react. some you think will rise to the occasion, do not. those who you think would shirk away do rise to the occasion.
1:47 am
>> i'm a trained dancer and actor. when someone falls, i catch them. you do what your muscles are trained to do. that may sound like an excuse. and maybe it is. but it's not our job to judge his actions. it's our job to control our own, you know. >> you also say that the track is much deeper than a lot of people think. >> you know, it's deeper than it looks. if there's the edge, then cut away. so, if you're up on it, there's nothing to brace against, which i didn't know until i tried to press myself up out of there. it's dirty. it's slippery. it's greasy dirt. it's not just dusty the way it looks. >> you were also confident in your own knowledge of the subway tracks because you knew where the third rail is. like i look -- i ride the subway every day. i don't know where the third rail is. >> i'm a bit of a train guy. so, i know how they're built and what it looks like and where things go. although i learned something new today, because of this, which is if you run to the end of the track there are ladders, which i guess i've seen but i never thought of it. but if you run in the
1:48 am
direction -- run away from the train, that there's a ladder at the end, which is helpful, i think, although there's lots of things that could go wrong there, too. ultimately train safety is your best bet. >> there's another photo i want to show our viewers of when mr. hunt fell on the tracks. it doesn't look like the train is that close. it seems like there may have been time to help. >> if that's the case, we have something else here, mr. anderson cooper, we need to decide as americans, as human beings, whether we're going to be in a moment or take a picture of it. not to throw it back on the photographer but there were lots of people on the platform. there were a lot of people in the platform when i was in that same situation. and some backed up against the wall or ran for the station door. our culture is obsessed with proving we were there, so, i'm going to post that on facebook and -- >> that's more important than ever. there's this instant desire. rather than have a real experience or be in the moment,
1:49 am
people want to document it, take a picture of it, post it later. i think we see that in a lot of different cases. we have to go because we're short on time. i appreciate you being with us. >> my pleasure. >> amazing what you did years ago. thank you so much. >> any time. thanks. up next, find out why a radio station is apologizing after an incident linked to prince william's wife, kate, royal mom to be. we'll be right back. >> announcer: you never know when, but thieves can steal your identity and turn your life upside down. >> hi. >> hi. you know, i can save you 15% today if you open up a charge card account with us. >> you just read my mind. >> announcer: just one little piece of information and they
1:50 am
can open bogus accounts, stealing your credit, your money and ruining your reputation. that's why you need lifelock to relentlessly protect what matters most... [beeping...] helping stop crooks before your identity is attacked. and now you can have the most comprehensive identity theft protection available today... lifelock ultimate. so for protection you just can't get anywhere else, get lifelock ultimate. >> i didn't know how serious identity theft was until i lost my credit and eventually i lost my home. >> announcer: credit monitoring is not enough, because it tells you after the fact, sometimes as much as 30 days later. with lifelock, as soon as our network spots a threat to your identity, you'll get a proactive risk alert, protecting you before you become a victim. >> identity theft was a huge, huge problem for me and it's gone away because of lifelock. >> announcer: while no one can stop all identity theft, if criminals do steal your information, lifelock will help fix it, with our $1 million service guarantee.
1:51 am
don't wait until you become the next victim. you have so much to protect and nothing to lose when you call lifelock now to get two full months of identity theft protection risk free. that's right, 60 days risk-free. use promo code: gethelp. if you're not completely satisfied, notify lifelock and you won't pay a cent. order now and also get this shredder to keep your documents out of the wrong hands-- a $29 dollar value, free. get protected now. call the number on your screen or go to to try lifelock protection risk free for a full 60 days. use promo code: gethelp. plus get this document shredder free-- but only if you act right now. call the number on your screen now!
1:52 am
i'm deb feyerick with a "360 news" bulletin.
1:53 am
fugitive software mogul, john mcafee has been arrested by guatemalan authorities according to the country's interior ministry. he's accused of being in the central american country illegally. a government spokesman said he'll likely be returned to belize tomorrow. it is the latest twist in the bizarre saga. police in bilis aelize are eageo question mcafee in the shooting death of his neighbor. mcafee says he's being persecuted by the belize government. he's been on the run since the killing last month. and chaos in cairo. protests continue outside the presidential palace. the health ministry reports at least 4 people dead and more than 270 injured. some time in the next few hours, president mohamed morsi is expected to address the nation. demonstrators are upset with morsi's power grab last month. and massive job cuts at citigroup. 11,000 jobs set to be eliminated in an effort to trim costs. citi will also consolidate or close 84 bank branches in the u.s. and other countries. and an australian radio station has apologized after
1:54 am
making a prank call to the hospital where prince william's pregnant wife, catherine, is being treated for acute morning sickness. two deejays got through to kate's private nurse after claiming to be queen elizabeth and prince charles. anderson? >> deb, thanks. the connection tonight, a new way to use social media to find homes for pets in need. the pics for pets app allows users to browse through photos of animals at shelters and start the adoption or share with friends. it's a cool idea. you can also use your cell phone cameras to take photos in shelters and share them. it even offers tips for getting the cutest shot. and when the photos go viral, pics for pets will make a donation to the shelter. the more shares, the more cash for supplies like food, bedding and toys. we'll be right back. the "ridiculist" is next. eóoç=ñ
1:55 am
1:56 am
1:57 am
1:58 am
time now for the "ridiculist." i'm proud to present to you a very important message from the esteemed former senator from wyoming, mr. alan simpson. this requires your full attention, a highly respected elder statesman directed to the youth of america. >> stop instagraming your breakfast and tweeting your first world problems and getting on youtube so you can see "gangnam style."
1:59 am
♪ gangnam style >> normally i would say when former senator allen simpson does it, it probably means gangnam style has officially jumped the shark. but i think the dancing can of soda next to it saves him. gives it a fresh twist. and there's more. >> start using those precious social media skills to go out and sign people up on this, baby, three people a week, let it grow and don't forget, take part or get taken apart. boy, these old coots will clean out the treasury before you get there. >> it's a video for a group called the can kicks back, a nonpartisan campaign by young people to fix the national debt. i think they're totally on to something with this video. i feel like any time you get to hear allen simpson say these old coots and talk about instagraming your breakfast, it not only screams fiscal responsibility and could be used in peace talks and quite possibly could cure the common cold.